Category Archives: Athletics

10.15.10
by

Purdy interview on KNBR

Merc columnist and all-around San Jose booster Mark Purdy was on the Fitz and Brooks show today (podcast MP3). After a few minutes of figuring out where the Niners’ season went wrong, Bob Fitzgerald asked Purdy about the ballpark situation. At no point was there a mention of yesterday’s news about the Redevelopment Agency’s funding shortage. What Purdy revealed was no less interesting, and I can provide a small amount of additional back story.

Asked about the state of the MLB panel’s report, Purdy said this:

What I know is that Lew Wolff did have a meeting a couple, three weeks ago. (He) came out of that meeting feeling optimistic that the report was gonna be issued soon, and optimistic that it was gonna come down in favor of the A’s at least being able to explore the ballpark in San Jose. I know that.

I also know that another source close to that… they are proceeding down only one track at the moment… they’re proceeding down the San Jose track… at the moment. That’s what I know.

As I understand it, Wolff met with Selig twice in September, once in LA during an A’s road trip and again in Milwaukee, Selig’s home turf. Some time after that, I started hearing that South Bay advocates were feeling pretty good about things. I didn’t get any info then about what they were feeling good about. Apparently Purdy did get it.

If true, there are some major takeaways, which combined with some info we know about the Giants, makes the picture much, much clearer.

  • Oakland is not under consideration at this stage, only San Jose is. Note that Purdy did not say that Oakland was completely eliminated, only that it isn’t in the running “at the moment.” If San Jose fails, Oakland becomes a factor again. But only if San Jose fails.
  • Something will happen at the owners meetings. Sure, but which owners meetings? The first set is November 17-18 in Orlando. The next set will be December 6-9 at Lake Buena Vista, which is just outside Orlando. As much as the A’s situation continues to linger, the owners will also spend a good deal of time on the lingering fate of the Tampa Bay Rays, who are based only two hours southwest of Orlando.
  • Ruling that the A’s will be able to explore building a ballpark in San Jose. This is the one I’m most curious about, because if it’s true, it represents a sort of softening on MLB’s part. MLB generally won’t allow a city to get a team unless there is a signed deal in place. They even left DC hanging while lawsuits and eminent domain proceedings threatened the prospects of what would eventually become Nationals Park. This news indicates that San Jose will have a chance, but will need to get the rest of its pieces in place (land, referendum). That could give San Jose no more than a 6-9 month window – 6 months if land proceedings go smoothly or 9+ if eminent domain is required. Plus you can never tell what will happen on the legal front (Giants or surrogates).

Purdy spends the rest of the segment theorizing what might be happening behind the scenes. As much as it sucks to be kept in suspense, I’d much rather the panel take this time to work out all of the details, than to have Selig and the owners make a decision and then clean up the mess afterward. Even then, it’s uncertain what the Giants will do, since they are maintaining a “no-negotiation” stance. I guess when it comes to dealing with any Halloween-colored team owned by a lawyer, things tend to get messy.

10.14.10
by

SJ Redevelopment low on funds, Wolff ready to step up

Despite assurances from SJRA officials last month that the agency would have enough funds to take care of the remaining land buys for the Diridon site, it now appears that they are running short. However, even if they do Lew Wolff may be ready to buy the rest of the land, or even the entire site if need be.

“There isn’t a redevelopment agency or city or federal or state government that isn’t in some form of disarray at this point,” Wolff said Thursday of the agency’s struggles.

While he and agency officials both said no details of a possible land purchase by Wolff had been discussed, the team owner pledged: “Whatever issues we run into, we will figure out how to get them done. We will not let anything stand in the way of getting the ballpark done.”

This sets up a number of land acquisition/swap possibilities:

  • It’s possible the A’s could buy the land and give it back to the city. That would set up a situation in which the A’s could pay a discounted lease on the land until the City reimbursed the team.
  • They could also try to buy the existing public parcels and the remaining ones, making the entire thing privately held. There would be a snag if the landowners were unwilling to sell, because a private interest can’t exercise eminent domain as a city can. If the A’s managed to pull this off, it would probably be the biggest political winner, since the perception of a handout by the city, such as it were, would vanish. $20+24 million for a guaranteed electoral victory in March? It’s worth a cost-benefit analysis at the very least.
  • The team could also buy the public parcels, giving SJRA enough cash to buy the remaining parcels and fund the Autumn Parkway project. The land could be given or sold to the agency, with the cash transaction part happening sometime in the distance.

As mayor Chuck Reed said, “There are half a dozen different ways to put together a deal.” The ones listed above are just off the top of my head.

Even with the low funds situation, City officials are putting on a brave face.

“We’re committed as a city to move forward with the stadium, because it’s the most promising economic development project we’ve seen in the last decade,” Councilman Sam Liccardo said.

“I don’t expect the redevelopment agency’s fiscal problems will prevent us from finding a creative solution.”

Offering to help a municipality is not a foreign concept to Wolff. He offered to pay for upgrades to Phoenix Muni, only to get a collective shrug from the city. The Quakes also paid for upgrades to Buck Shaw Stadium in order to make it a (not so) temporary MLS facility.

10.06.10
by

Trib Editorial Board asks mayoral candidates about A’s, Warriors

Blog fave Dave Newhouse reports on a panel held for the four leading Oakland mayoral candidates about two major sports issues affecting Oakland. The one with the most ink is the matter of whether the Golden State Warriors will finally adopt the Oakland moniker. I suspect the answer for incoming W’s owners Joe Lacob and Peter Guber lies in money. Chris Cohan hinted a long time ago that some amount of relief from the team’s lease might do it. It’s not clear whether the same thing would satisfy the new owners. There is also some question as to what value each designation has. Is “Oakland Warriors” more or less valuable as a brand than “Golden State Warriors?” Some sports marketing folks out there know the answer to that better than I do.

Following that question of pride was a question about a pending fall. All four were asked to address the A’s situation:

(Jean) Quan: “I think this (city) is the soul of Major League Baseball — great diversity, ethnically and income-wise. I met Lew Wolff after I got elected. He didn’t say ‘girlie,’ but almost. There’s not a transit-rich (baseball) site that’s more ready to go in the entire Bay Area than ‘Victory Court’ (in Jack London Square). We own most of it, and could develop it as an entertainment (center).”

(Rebecca) Kaplan: “I love the A’s. Lew Wolff felt (Mayor) Jerry Brown didn’t care. The A’s could succeed here very well. I believe we could have a football and baseball stadium on the Coliseum site. We own the land. San Jose is not a done deal. They have a local law that requires a ballot measure, and they did not put it on the November ballot. So there’s a window of opportunity here.”

(Joe) Tuman: “I’ll be blunt. In professional sports, it’s ‘show me the money.’ … I won’t spend a dime of public money on keeping the Oakland Athletics here when I can’t pay for police officers or keep the streets safe. I’m not saying it can’t work, but let’s be objective.”

(Don) Perata: “I probably know a little more about this stuff than most people. I was part of two Raider deals that both failed. We got held up; we really did — by both (the A’s and Raiders). We got rid of the Coliseum board and then politicized it. … In retrospect, it was a disaster. I don’t think the A’s are going to stay here. We can’t play in this game, putting up the money. We haven’t been smart with our franchises.”

So from this, we can gather that one candidate backs Victory Court, another backs a Coliseum-sited ballpark, another won’t put up a dime, and the frontrunner has given up. Well, no one can ever say Oakland lacks diversity, and that goes for sports politics too.

According to this DIY poll by TellFi (via The Oakbook), Perata is garnering 34% of the vote, with Quan at 27%, Kaplan at 16%, and Tuman at 10%. If Perata and his rather brutally honest mindset prevails, it’s probably curtains for MLB in Oakland. Absent a simple majority, Perata would have to win via the instant runoff that would occur on election day.

Strangely, Newhouse follows up Perata’s comment by writing, “But we’ve been smart enough to keep them.” I’m not sure that smart is the operative word, Dave.

(Thanks, Ed)

Quick postscript: I wonder how linusalf will spin this Newhouse article? Update 10/8: He finally did, and it doesn’t say much. Also, supposedly Lowell Cohn was on Ken Dito’s show this morning and is no longer opposing a move south because of Oakland’s inaction. Wonders never cease.

10.04.10
by

More end of season tidbits

Let’s roll it out, shall we?

  • New Twitter update (and article) from A’s beat writer extraordinaire Susan Slusser (@susanslusser): Beane feels optimistic about prospects for new stadium. He says team expects news sooner than later.  #Athletics. More on this from MLB.com’s Jane Lee.
  • The Quakes named David Kaval as its new President. Kaval replaces Michael Crowley (the one who owns a piece of the A’s, not the journalist), who will be bumped up to Managing Director. Kaval’s previous gig was at the independent Golden Baseball League. Quick analysis: the Quakes need to make more headway with sponsorships, and Kaval’s experience indicates he knows the angles.
  • –
  • Target Field ended the regular season with the 3rd worst home run rate (1.35 HR/game) of any MLB ballpark, just behind Safeco Field (1.22) and yes, the venerable Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum (1.33). Some of that may be attributable to the half-season absence of Justin Morneau and Joe Mauer‘s almost inexplicable power dropoff, from 28 to 9 HR in one year. Mauer should be able to adjust, as David Wright did at Citi Field (10 to 29 HR from 2009 to 2010).
  • The Twins are criticizing the T-Wolves for placing a large ad sign at Target Center that will be visible from Target Field and Target Plaza. Seriously?
  • Home runs are down slightly at New Yankee Stadium, but it’s still the most HR-producing park in the majors.
  • MLB instituted new sky ground rules at Tropicana Field for the playoffs. The upper “A” and “B” compression rings/catwalks that hold up the dome are no longer in play, as balls that hit the rings are now automatic dead balls. Previously, balls that hit the rings were in play, and were ruled fair or foul based on where they landed. The lower “C” and “D” rings are home runs if balls hit them in fair territory.
  • Matier and Ross report that the 49ers are getting ready to open a sales office for their planned Santa Clara Stadium. The office will be in the Tech Center, which is adjacent to the Santa Clara Convention Center, which itself is across the street from the stadium site. No seat license prices yet, of course.
  • Mesa, AZ voters are mulling over Prop 420, a proposal to replace HoHoKam Park with a new city-owned ballpark complex with a bunch of ancillary development to help pay for it. If you’ve ever been to HoHoKam, you’ll know that the only thing ancillary to the park right now is a cemetery.
  • Firing up stogies in the clubhouse to celebrate the Reds’ first division crown since they opened their new ballpark is apparently verboten.
  • The nonprofit group that runs the Memphis Redbirds (AAA, Cardinals) has been struggling financially, causing them to consolidate a bunch of debt in an effort to stay afloat. What hurt them? The arrival of the Memphis Grizzlies, a blip of excitement for U of Memphis basketball when John Calipari was there, and bad projections for attendance at AutoZone Park. The team and ballpark will probably be sold in the near future.
  • The Giants are getting the late game slots (6:37 PM PT) for their first two home NLDS games, which is great for West Coast viewers, not so great if you’re a young Braves fan who has to go to school Friday morning. The Rangers are getting the crappy day slots that we as A’s fans have been rather familiar with.
  • Attendance at yesterday’s Raiders-Texans game was a scant 32,218. There are often comments about how whether or not the Bay Area is a two-team baseball market; are we sure it holds up as a two-team football market? They could’ve saved some money and left the tarps on!

Update: Tonight’s fresh articles by Susan Slusser and Jane Lee have done a better job of clarifying where management’s position is going forward than the quotes Slusser got from Lew Wolff last week. From Lee’s article:

“I was talking to one free agent last year, trying to tell him to concentrate on the field, that we had the best playing facility in the league, the best groundskeeper in the league. He said, ‘You’re right — until August.'”

…

“I think we’re going to be planning a new stadium at some point soon,” Beane said. “That’s just my own gut feeling. We have to at some point. I’m an optimist.

“I think it will allow us to start to plan around some of these guys here from a long-term standpoint. Hopefully, it’s not a revolving door, like it’s been the last decade. Hopefully, we could do some long-term planning, which we really haven’t been able to do. I think it would be pretty invigorating for everybody involved, and I think everybody would sort of be relieved having a direction for the franchise.”

Thing is, if MLB rules in Oakland’s favor, there’s an immediate quandary because I don’t think the owners have been planning on staying in Oakland.

09.29.10
by

The debt rule and you

When the current CBA was ratified in 2006, it was largely seen as little more than extension to the 2002 CBA. That is, except for one pretty important detail. Prior to 2006, all MLB teams had to conform to what was called the 60/40 debt rule (assets/liabilities). Enforcement of the rule was at best lax, allowing teams to make some really bizarre long term contracts without batting an eye. With the new CBA, the debt rule had radically changed. Instead of pinning available debt to franchise value under the 60/40 rule, debt was to be capped based on earnings. Here’s the initial language of the rule:

DEBT SERVICE RULE
Section 1.    The Rule. No Club may maintain more Total Club Debt than can reasonably be supported by its EBITDA. A Club’s Total Club Debt cannot reasonably be supported by its EBITDA if Total Club Debt exceeds the product of the average of that Club’s EBITDA over the most recent two years multiplied by the Cash Flow Multiplier applicable to that Club; provided, however, that a Club may elect, on or before April 1, 2007, to utilize, in both 2007 and 2008, the average of its EBITDA over the most recent three years.

To illustrate this, let’s look at Forbes’ 2010 financial profile of the A’s. In it, operating income (EBITDA) came out to $22.1 million. For 2009, it was $26 million. Averaged, it’s $24 million. To get the Total Club Debt ceiling, multiply that last figure by 10, and you get $240 million in debt ceiling. Also in the profile, the A’s have a 30% debt/value ratio, putting the team’s applicable current debt at $88.5 million. Every team gets a debt exemption of $36.5 million. Factored in, that puts the A’s debt at $52 million. That leaves $188 million under the team’s cap.

According to the listed definitions of what constitutes debt, just about anything that is borrowed or to be paid later falls in. This includes loans from MLB or third parties such as banks, non-player deferred compensation, stadium debt (only when the stadium opens), loans from related parties (ex.: partly or wholly owned regional sports networks), and any other debt except for a player compensation and an initial $36.5 million deduction (like the standard income tax deduction).

The 10x multiplier changes to 15x when a new stadium opens. This is important, because, as Jeffrey pointed out two weeks ago, MLB is ready to provide a loan of up to $150 million for construction. Assuming that EBITDA stays fairly constant, the A’s debt ceiling will move to $360 million. In the meantime, the A’s would likely pay down existing debt (either from annual profits or by bringing in additional partners) to get itself in the right position to get the stadium financing.

The kicker here is that while player compensation is not supposed to be part of the calculus, it is no doubt a considering factor. Selig has a mandate for mid/small market teams to get their houses in order prior to opening a new ballpark. Any number of punitive measures can be taken against a club if they go over their debt cap, including restrictions against future borrowing and even limits to new player contracts. If anything, this is the true spirit of the debt rule: to keep teams living within their means. (Big market teams such as the Dodgers and the Rangers under Tom Hicks benefited from selective enforcement.)

To understand how this affects the A’s moving forward, let’s take a look at where the teams stands in terms of payroll as of the end of the season:

Now let’s assume that certain housekeeping moves are made. Trevor Cahill is locked up through his arb years in a similar deal to what Brett Anderson received, plus Daric Barton is also secured. In addition, Mark Ellis is brought back, as well as Kevin Kouzmanoff. Jack Cust is gone, while Michael Taylor starts the season in RF. Gio Gonzalez, Dallas Braden, and Andrew Bailey are also back through short-term/non-arb deals. No one of note is traded, but a free agent slugger is brought in for a 2-year, $20 million deal with a third year team option. Here’s what that would look like:

If you’re Selig and you’re looking at the two tables, you’re thinking “That’s it. Give me your credit card.” It doesn’t matter that this kind of debt technically doesn’t count toward’s the CBA definition, it’s still debt. Salaries weren’t supposed to count under the old 60/40 rule either, but they did. It’s a terribly unfair way to run a competitive league, but them’s the breaks. By 2013, the payroll will head into the $80 million territory because of the normally occurring raises. As a team that is not yet fully capable of carrying its own weight, the A’s have their own de facto salary cap. Most of it is due to circumstance. Type A free agents aren’t going to sign 2-3 year deals here unless they have a problem that makes other teams balk at giving them 5-6 year deals (injury history, age, consistency). Yet that 2-3 year window is exactly what the team should exercise while costs are contained. Lew Wolff mentioned recently that the one-year rental idea doesn’t work that well, which is true at least historically. So what’s the best way to fill in the holes in the lineup? More Coco Crisps? Trade one or more of the pitchers for a bat?

Most importantly, how does this affect how you view the A’s future, or the league in general?

Note: If you’re wondering how the Yankees operate within the rules even though they’ve accrued billions of dollars of debt, the answer is simple. The team doesn’t “own” most of the debt. Its related parties do.

09.27.10
by

Larry Stone speaks, some won’t like it

KCBS Radio did one of their In Depth interviews with Santa Clara County Assessor Larry Stone (MP3 download). Stone has, of course, been a active, constant proponent of bringing MLB to the South Bay, and has used his easily won public office as a bully pulpit. Stone was asked about the history of now 24-year effort to get this done, plus fielded questions about whether his roles as assessor and developer are conflicts of interest. If you’re a South Bay partisan, you’re going to think what he’s saying is gospel. If you’re an Oakland partisan, your ears may bleed profusely. It’s over 27 minutes long and well worth the listen (thanks, I.C.).

Among the morsels from the interview:

  • Within the first two minutes, Stone makes the claim that the A’s can’t survive in Oakland.
  • Stone is (IIRC) the first public figure to say that the Giants are trying to drive the A’s out of the market. When challenged on this, his response is, “Anybody would try to do this.”
  • Apparently the Earthquakes are not considered a major pro sports team, at least according to Stone. He must’ve forgotten them.
  • He thinks the Giants could spend $2-3 million to defeat the spring ballot measure.
  • Stone dances around the idea that some of the owners might feel threatened by another team invading their respective territories.
  • SJRA has the money set aside for the last two parcels (AT&T and Aegis).
  • Stone claims that when he talked to Schott some time ago, Schott had 75% of the owners lined up for a vote for a move south.
  • Stone speculates that Selig gave the Giants a “10 year head start” for the SC Co. t-rights, in effect protecting the county for a decade.
  • Interviewer Jane McMillan characterizes the Diridon area as “suburban” in comparison to what would normally be considered urban areas for other ballparks. Where does urban end and suburban begin?
  • McMillan also asks if a deal is done, but unfortunately says that the ballpark will be shared with the Quakes (which it won’t), which got Stone’s response moving in the wrong direction.

It’s a good listen, though if you’re on the SJ bandwagon you’ve already heard many of the talking points.

BTW, on an unrelated note, the Rangers secured a 20 year, $3 billion extension to the current TV rights deal with Fox Sports Southwest. $150 million a year (Maury Brown thinks the numbers could be off). Guess they won’t have that big debt problem that could keep them from re-signing Cliff Lee and extending Josh Hamilton.

09.24.10
by

End of the season stadium tidbits

Not much to report on the home front, at least when it comes to the A’s stadium saga. However, there are a few other news items that might be of interest.

  • Going back to speculation about how the club section at Cisco Field might work, MLBAM is piloting an “order from your seat” system from within its At Bat iPhone app. The brief pilot runs through the end of the season, and claims order delivery of 30 minutes or less.
  • With the Pac-10 expanding to 12 teams next year, the conference will be broken into two divisions, requiring a football championship game in the process. While such games have been a boon for powerhouse conferences such as the Big-12 and SEC, it remains to be seen if the Pac-10, whose basketball championship has been notorious for poor attendance, will see much success. Las Vegas has emerged with some initial buzz, though the game could be held almost anywhere within the conference’s area, including San Francisco or Oakland. The league and its member schools are meeting in SF in two weeks to hash all of this out. FWIW, the Pac-10’s headquarters are in Walnut Creek.
  • The A’s got caught up in the annual shuffle of minor league affiliates. Vancouver switched to the Blue Jays, leaving the A’s in the lurch until they signed a deal with the Vermont Lake Monsters (Burlington, VT) yesterday. Kane County left the A’s for Kansas City, leaving an opening for the Burlington (IA) Bees. The Sacramento River Cats re-upped through 2014 with little drama. Midland and Stockton remain unchanged. Vermont’s Centennial Field is notable for being owned by the University of Vermont, and for its capacious foul territory (~85 feet from home plate to the backstop).
  • A threat by the Red Sox to leave spring training home Fort Myers has worked, as Lee County is ponying up $81 million in bonds for a new stadium, even though $17.5 million in city debt remains on the old one.
  • Escondido is spending nearly $400k on its own study of a Padres’ AAA stadium.

Will we hear something about the A’s soon? Maybe… Consider this an open thread.

09.20.10
by

San Jose City Council approve resolutions to support A’s move

Update 9/21 7:40 PM – Resolutions (city and redev agency) passed unanimously. Mayor Reed says that he’ll be talking to MLB COO Bob DuPuy soon to get some direction, and that he’s cautiously optimistic that he’ll get a resolution soon.

Tomorrow night, the San Jose City Council will vote on another set of resolutions (city and redevelopment agency have slightly different versions) in support of a move south. From what I can tell, the only significant language change was the recognition of recent statement of support by SVLG and 75 of its constituent CEO’s.

I will not be attending the session, but I will be monitoring it remotely. Action on the resolution is slated to be early in the agenda. If you’re interested, here’s the newest language:

RESOLUTION NO. ____

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN JOSE:
(A) REAFFIRMING THE NEGOTIATING PRINCIPLES PREVIOUSLY ESTABLISHED AND AMENDED BY THE CITY COUNCIL; AND (B) SUPPORTING THE EFFORTS OF THE OAKLAND ATHLETICS OWNERSHIP TO MOVE THE TEAM TO SAN JOSÉ AND THE ASSISTANCE OF THE SILICON VALLEY LEADERSHIP GROUP AND OTHER LOCAL GROUPS IN THEIR EFFORTS TO BRING MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL TO SAN JOSE

WHEREAS, on April 7, 2009 and August 3, 2010, the City Council and Agency Board affirmed its interest in supporting the efforts of the Oakland Athletics’ ownership to move the team to the City of San Jose; and

WHEREAS, on May 12, 2009, the City Council and Agency Board established Negotiating Principles for the development of a stadium in the Downtown for a Major League Baseball team, which were subsequently amended by Council on August 3, 2010; and

WHEREAS, on September 10, 2010, through the efforts of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, a letter from seventy five (75) of Silicon Valley’s leading CEOs was sent to Major League Baseball urging Commissioner Selig to approve the Athletics’ move to San Jose; and

WHEREAS, various local organizations, including the San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce, the San Jose Convention and Visitors Bureau, the San Jose Sports Authority and Baseball San Jose, have all expressed their support for the Athletics’ move to San Jose, and Lew Wolff, the Athletics’ owner, is also on record as indicating he would prefer San Jose as the new home of the Athletics; and

WHEREAS, the Council desires to reaffirm the following previously-approved Negotiating Principles that will guide the City’s efforts in bringing a Major League Baseball stadium to San Jose:

1. No new taxes are imposed to fund ballpark-related expenditures.

2. The City must determine that the ballpark development will generate a significant economic benefit to the City and have a positive impact on City General Fund revenues.

3. No public funds shall be spent to finance or reimburse any costs associated with construction of the ballpark or construction of any on-site infrastructure or improvements needed for the ballpark.

4. No public funds of any kind are spent to finance or reimburse any ballpark operational or maintenance costs related to activities conducted by or under the authority of the baseball team that uses the ballpark either at the ballpark or in the streets surrounding the ballpark.

5. No public funds shall be spent to finance or reimburse the cost of any traffic control, street cleanup, emergency or security services within the ballpark site or within the streets surrounding the ballpark that are related to activities at the ballpark conducted by or under the authority of the baseball team.

6. If the property is leased for a ballpark, the baseball team must be willing, at the end of the term of the lease, either to purchase the property at fair market value or to do one of the following things at the City’s option and at no cost to the City or the Redevelopment Agency:

a. Transfer ownership of the improvements to the City or Redevelopment Agency; or
b. Demolish the improvements and clear the site to make way for other development.

7. The entity that builds or operates the ballpark must be willing, if the City deems it appropriate, to make the ballpark available to the City during baseball’s offseason for up to 10 days per year for community-related events, at no rental charge to the City.

8. The name of the baseball team must include San Jose.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN JOSE:
(a)  Reaffirms the negotiating principles previously established and amended by the City Council; and
(b)  Supports the efforts of the Oakland Athletics ownership to move the team to San José and the assistance of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group and other local groups in their efforts to bring Major League Baseball to San Jose.

I don’t expect this to change unless MLB makes its own announcement, after which the resolution would be amended again. This is what we can expect until the spring election, if it occurs.

Some choice quotes from public speakers at the session tonight:

Michael Mulcahy: I’m not a San Francisco Giants fan, but I’m rooting for them to make the playoffs so that we can see how that transforms a city.

Former Mayor Susan Hammer: I’m getting a little impatient with the snail’s pace of Major League Baseball.

09.18.10
by

Fishwrap picks up the I-980 story

That’s right, it may be a bit late, but at least someone, in this case BANG’s Chris Metinko, has picked up the I-980 ballpark site story. That’s not to say that he scooped it – the prize for that goes to this blog’s very own Jeffrey for his article earlier this week. While it’s nice to see that someone paid attention (and reads this blog), Metinko misses the juiciest part of the story.

That, of course, is the question of why all of Oakland’s focus is on three JLS sites, one which shouldn’t be there in the first place (Howard Terminal), and another that City is already sending out a RFQ for an EIR (Victory Court). The answer showed itself a signing ceremony at Oakland’s Estuary Park on Tuesday, which attended by Lt. Governor Abel Maldonado, among others. The Oak-to-Ninth project has taken 6 years, legislation pushed by then State Senate leader Don Perata, a near referendum, and litigation to get to this point. And as mentioned in Let’s Go Oakland’s economic impact report, O29 will not see full buildout unless a ballpark is built. Without a ballpark, it’ll be 85%. Given the size of the project, that difference is worth nine figures. Follow the money, folks.

BTW, I’m waiting for an apology, FSU/mb.

09.17.10
by

If You Got Any Money Left Over, Buy Yourself Something REAL Nice, Clark.

The headline is a quote from one of my favorite movies of all time, National Lampoon’s Christmas Vacation. It is spoken by Cousin Eddie as he loads up a shopping cart with dog food that his Cousin-in-Law, Clark Griswold, is expected to pay for. At this point in the movie, Clark is telling Eddie that he wants to make sure Eddie’s children have a nice Christmas and that he is willing to buy them some gifts if it will help. Eddie’s “gratitude” is clear when he pulls out a prepared list of things his children want for Christmas. What the heck does this have to do with the A’s and a new stadium?

The elephant in the room, the one everyone seems to be ignoring, is that the details of any financing plan for a new Bay Area stadium are murky, at best. We all hear “privately financed” bandied about in media reports. But what does that really mean? After all, with rare exceptions, MLB has played Cousin Eddie to just about every city that has seen a new stadium go up in the past 25 years.

The only real exception, though it was not entirely privately financed, is AT&T Park. Using this park as an example, 96% was privately financed, we can back into what “privately financed” actually means. Roughly half of that funding was provided through corporate support,  or the combination of naming rights (Pac Bell) and Charter Seat sales. The other half was in the form of a loan provided by Chase Bank, secured with MLB’s help. It seems clearer and clearer that this is, mostly, the model that MLB has in mind for the A’s.

So what evidence do we have that a ballpark in either Oakland or San Jose will follow a similar model? For one, we have the report that MLB has discussed a loan of $150M with folks in Oakland. We have the letter from Ron Dellums and Jane Brunner talking up deposits from 35 companies (amongst other things). We also have a recent letter from Silicon Valley power players to Bud Selig supporting a move down 880. Now we have the follow up Op Ed in the Mercury News, authored by two of those power players (Mike Klayko of Brocade and Tom Werner of Sun Power) pretty much restating the original letter. The key line from the Op Ed is:

Along with other respected and diverse organizations, we stand ready to offer any support needed to move this important project forward.

And from the SVLG 75 CEO/Other Important People Open Letter (Fourth paragraph, first sentence):

The Silicon Valley Leadership Group, along with other respected and diverse organizations, stands ready to offer any support needed to move this important project forward.

On the surface, these are clear statements meant to persuade Selig. In part, they are meant to show that the corporate support needed for both long term viability and a private financing scheme is there, in both cities. This is where the similarities end.

In the San Jose case, There are a few other Easter eggs that are not getting much mention.

I think MLB’s propensity for being Cousin Eddie, to (Insert City Name Here)’s Clark, is part of what the letters and Op Ed are about. Or, in other words, these messages are not only intended to allay Bud Selig’s fears (assuming he has them). They are also a signal to let citizens know that their “Corporate Citizens” are ready, willing and able to buy Charter Seats and sponsorships as part of any plan. We already know that Cisco is going to play Pac Bell’s role in a San Jose version of San Francisco’s funding scheme.

Another part of this message is, Miami is mad at you MLB for playing Cousin Eddie while the Marlins weren’t really living out of an RV, as they had claimed. If you come to San Jose, you don’t have to worry about that. We, the SVLG, will be Clark instead of the tax payers.

Additionally, there is the repeated mention of Giants fans within the SVLG communiques. This is meant to let Bud Selig know that there won’t be a mass exodus of Corporate support up in Baghdad by the Bay. That the Giants won’t become destitute, as Larry Baer wants us all to believe, provided the A’s move south. To undercut Bill Neukom’s argument for locking MLB out of San Jose.

There is one other thing hidden in the subtext. Watch this video, the important part comes up at 5:05.   When you combine John Chambers’ message (We won’t put our name on a Stadium in New York because we are in San Jose) with the fact that the SVLG letter and the Brocade/Sun Power Op Ed go out of their way to avoid mentioning the word “Oakland” and “new stadium” in the same context, the message is pretty clear. Bud Selig, we want the A’s in San Jose and will buy sponsorships and ticket packages for both the Giants and A’s if it gets us a stadium in San Jose. Not so much in Oakland.

I think it is fair to say that this what the messages are, don’t you?

What we don’t know, what the letters don’t tell us, is how much of any new stadium will be financed by corporations/presales and how much by loans, exactly. In the San Jose case, if 60 of those 75 companies bought some bundle of seats and advertising, and Cisco maintained $130M in naming rights, they would each need to pledge $1.7M of their Selling, General and Administrative budgets to Cisco Field in order for the combination of naming rights and Corporate sponsorships to cover half of the projected construction costs. As a point of reference, Yahoo’s S, G and A budget last year was $1.8B, which means this overly simplified $1.7M number represents less than one tenth of a percent of the budget where it would need to come from. There is a similar situation with Cisco ($9B), Brocade ($500M), Ebay ($3.6B), and so on and so forth.

Of course, we know that SVLG has well over 75 members and more members might be willing to chip in (while others, like the San Jose Giants, won’t be). I am guessing Bud Selig knows this, too. This is the biggest thing going against the possibility of Clorox Coliseum. If Oakland isn’t pledging public dollars for construction, how does the thing get paid for? If Oakland really is pledging pubic dollars (as I have been told) for construction, how long before pitch fork wielding citizens show up at City Hall?

The answer to this question (How does stadium construction get paid for?), not Larry Ellison’s attempt to buy the Warriors, not Bill Neukom’s Anti-Trust case won/loss record, and not 15 years of back and forth between the A’s and Oakland is what will, ultimately, decide where the A’s will play.

In short, it is “tradition and history” v. “a clear source of funding.” We can handicap this however we want, but it is what it is. I don’t know which will win out.

****(I am adding a table that shows the split between private and public funding at the most recent 21 MLB ballparks built for all of our info. It originally came for  the San Jose Economic Impact Analysis)

Funding Mix Private v. Public